Is man a creation of God or is God a creation of man?

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Skippy_of_Gondor » Sun Jun 23, 2002 10:06 pm

Thanks, Epor. I'm pressed for time, but I will answer your questions<BR><BR><BR><i>Is existence dependent on perception? How much of "reality" would you see as mere linguistic construct?</i><BR><BR>what I mean is, Can something exist outside your ability to sense it? <BR><BR>Do you think that the idea of anything being "real" is a matter of words and not substance.<BR><BR><i>If something is objective, it is the same for everyone, regardless of who is observing it. Nothing is objective.</i><BR><BR>Is this an objective observation? It certainly sounds absolutist!<BR><BR>
User avatar
Skippy_of_Gondor
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:15 pm
Top

Postby Epor » Thu Jun 27, 2002 5:18 am

I don't have the time to respond properly ATM, and wont have internet access for the next few days, I haven't forgotten about the thread however so a reply is forthcoming.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Postby Skippy_of_Gondor » Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:26 am

I know how you feel, Epor. I am self employed an have become very busy of late. <BR><BR>We look forward to hearing from you again, you are missed<img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Skippy_of_Gondor
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:15 pm
Top

Postby Epor » Tue Jul 02, 2002 3:08 am

Anewfan:<BR>A verbose way of saying that when there is no knowlegde, belief must suffice. I agree, the only difference between our views is that I don't consider it possible to ever have knowledge, of anything.<BR><BR><i>The contradiction is that you assume I am sharing the same reality as you, which by your own admission, cannot be known. You contradict your worldview when you make an appeal that can only rationally be made by someone with a worldview that allows for objective reality to be known. You are being inconsistent with your worldview.</i><BR><BR>It appears communication takes place, and your replies are effected by my posts. Obviously the questions of what you sense, and what reality you inhabit, are irrelevant, since it is impossible to know these things. Assumptions are made, and within these assumptions is included you reading my posts. If these assumptions no longer seem to work, new ones will have to be made. <BR><BR><i>Can something exist outside your ability to sense it? </i><BR><BR>Anything is possible, but when we can know nothing of something, it's existance, or non-existance, is irrelevant.<BR><BR><i>Do you think that the idea of anything being "real" is a matter of words and not substance.</i><BR><BR>The idea of something being "real" is wholly dependant on the ability to somehow sense what that, which is "real", is.<BR><BR><i>If something is objective, it is the same for everyone, regardless of who is observing it. Nothing is objective.<BR><BR>Is this an objective observation? It certainly sounds absolutist!</i><BR><BR>No. It is a rational one. It is, however, still at least indirectly based on my senses, and as such subjective.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Postby Epor » Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:27 am

Anewfan:<BR>I'll probably know by the end of this week if I got in.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Postby Skippy_of_Gondor » Wed Jul 03, 2002 8:51 pm

Thanks for the answer, Epor. I missed you. <BR><BR>I saw the earlier post. I hope you make it.<BR><BR>What major are you considering?
User avatar
Skippy_of_Gondor
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:15 pm
Top

Postby Epor » Thu Jul 04, 2002 1:47 am

Translation of English to Finnish.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Postby the_Wanderer » Thu Jul 04, 2002 9:31 am

Wow. That's interesting.<BR><BR>
User avatar
the_Wanderer
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 8:07 am
Top

Postby resolCkooL » Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:05 pm

<i>It appears communication takes place, and your replies are effected by my posts. Obviously the questions of what you sense, and what reality you inhabit, are irrelevant, since it is impossible to know these things. Assumptions are made, and within these assumptions is included you reading my posts. If these assumptions no longer seem to work, new ones will have to be made. </i><BR><BR>But your worldview doesn’t rationally allow for assumptions. You can’t rationally or consistently apply to everyone else what you believe to be true about yourself, because what you believe to be true about yourself is subjective. You can’t trust your senses. Therefore, you can’t know anything for sure. But then you project the same condition on everyone else. “I can’t trust my senses, therefore no one else can trust their senses either.” That’s universal and absolutist, which is in violation of your beliefs. You have no rational basis for assuming that anyone else is in the same condition as yourself because the only source you have for that information is your senses, which are untrustworthy.<BR><BR>Every time you argue about the nature of something outside yourself, you are being irrational and inconsistent and contradictory. You cannot live up to the requirements of your worldview. You are moving into my worldview that says that things do exist and that things are the same for everyone.<BR><BR>If you truly believed your worldview, you would never argue with anyone about anything because your very act of arguing presupposes the other worldview. The most you could ever logically say is, “I can’t trust my senses”. Any other comment about anything outside of you would be a direct contradiction of your stated beliefs.<BR><BR>Holding a belief and then behaving in direct contradiction to that belief, whether you call it willed ignorance or assumptions, is irrational. <BR><BR>One of the tests of the truths of a worldview is if it can be consistently lived. I submit that yours, by your own admission and actions, cannot.<BR><BR><i>If something is objective, it is the same for everyone, regardless of who is observing it. Nothing is objective. Is this an objective observation? It certainly sounds absolutist!<BR><BR>No. It is a rational one. It is, however, still at least indirectly based on my senses, and as such subjective.</i><BR><BR>Rationality and subjectivity are mutually exclusive.
User avatar
resolCkooL
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 4:56 pm
Top

Postby Epor » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:53 am

<i>But your worldview doesn’t rationally allow for assumptions. You can’t rationally or consistently apply to everyone else what you believe to be true about yourself, because what you believe to be true about yourself is subjective.</i><BR><BR>Your argument makes sense only if I know something about "everyone else", which is impossible. I sense certain things, including this board. This does not make the board, or any of the people posting here, any more "real" than if I didn't sense it. All assumptions made are based on senses, as as such, they are all irrelevant and subjective, and assumptions is all that anyone can have.<BR><BR><i>You can’t trust your senses. Therefore, you can’t know anything for sure. But then you project the same condition on everyone else. “I can’t trust my senses, therefore no one else can trust their senses either.” That’s universal and absolutist, which is in violation of your beliefs. You have no rational basis for assuming that anyone else is in the same condition as yourself because the only source you have for that information is your senses, which are untrustworthy.</i><BR><BR>I project no such condition to anyone, since the existance of anyone (myself included) is unknowable, and as such irrelevant. The projection you describe would be possible only if the targets of said projection could be said to be "real" on any objective level. <BR><BR><i>Every time you argue about the nature of something outside yourself, you are being irrational and inconsistent and contradictory. You cannot live up to the requirements of your worldview. You are moving into my worldview that says that things do exist and that things are the same for everyone.</i><BR><BR>No. For one, the "outside yourself" argument doesn't work at all since I have no more objective knowlegde about myself than I do about anything else. Your worldview has no relevance, nor does anything else about you. Within the assumptions I make based on the senses I have, interaction takes place, this however in no way validates your (or mine) existance.<BR><BR><i>If you truly believed your worldview, you would never argue with anyone about anything because your very act of arguing presupposes the other worldview. The most you could ever logically say is, “I can’t trust my senses”. Any other comment about anything outside of you would be a direct contradiction of your stated beliefs.</i><BR><BR>As I said, irrelevance does not require inaction. While experiences are irrelevant and subjecive, they can be enjoyable. Where is the contradiction?<BR><BR><i>Holding a belief and then behaving in direct contradiction to that belief, whether you call it willed ignorance or assumptions, is irrational. </i><BR><BR>See above.<BR><BR><i>One of the tests of the truths of a worldview is if it can be consistently lived. I submit that yours, by your own admission and actions, cannot.</i><BR><BR>As I've said before, nihilism makes no comment about what actions would be consistent with it, and as such all are.<BR><BR><i>Rationality and subjectivity are mutually exclusive. </i><BR><BR>Why is that? <BR>Rationality = Possession of reason.<BR>Reason = The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.<BR><BR>Subjectivity does not exclude reason, merely causes the end result of thought to be equally subjective as everything else.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Postby resolCkooL » Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:18 am

<i>Your argument makes sense only if I know something about "everyone else", which is impossible</i><BR><BR>Then why did you say in your last post, and I quote, "Nothing is objective"? You are making a statement about <b>everything</b> outside yourself.<BR><BR><i>I project no such condition to anyone, since the existance of anyone (myself included) is unknowable, and as such irrelevant</i><BR><BR>Then why did you say in your last post, and I quote, "Nothing is objective"? You are making a statement about <b>everything</b> outside yourself.<BR><BR><i>No. For one, the "outside yourself" argument doesn't work at all since I have no more objective knowlegde about myself than I do about anything else. </i><BR><BR>Then why did you say in your last post, and I quote, "Nothing is objective"? You are making a statement about <b>everything</b> outside yourself.<BR><BR><i>Why is that? <BR>Rationality = Possession of reason.<BR>Reason = The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.</i><BR><BR>Because a nihilist has no justification for rationality itself. Logic has no basis other than being a convention. Coherency and unity are unknowable at best, and that makes argumentation itself impossible, as well as the ability to make human experience intelligible. But, you continue to argue, which may not be a contradiction of what nihilism says are consistent actions, but it is a rational contradiction.<BR><BR>And something has dawned on me. I'm a fool for arguing with someone, who by his own admission, <b>doesn't know anything</b>. This will be my last post. You can have the last word....<BR><BR>(PS - I hope everything works out for you in your academic endeavors)<BR>
User avatar
resolCkooL
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 4:56 pm
Top

Postby Epor » Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:30 pm

<i>Then why did you say in your last post, and I quote, "Nothing is objective"? You are making a statement about everything outside yourself.</i><BR><BR>No, I'm stating a belief about everything, myself included.<BR><BR><i>Because a nihilist has no justification for rationality itself. Logic has no basis other than being a convention. Coherency and unity are unknowable at best, and that makes argumentation itself impossible, as well as the ability to make human experience intelligible. But, you continue to argue, which may not be a contradiction of what nihilism says are consistent actions, but it is a rational contradiction.</i><BR><BR>Logic seems to work within a set of assumptions made, but that doesn't make it objective.<BR><BR><i>And something has dawned on me. I'm a fool for arguing with someone, who by his own admission, doesn't know anything. This will be my last post. You can have the last word....</i><BR><BR>And I'm a fool arguing with someone who thinks he does know something, a common occurrence I assure you. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Postby Epor » Fri Jul 12, 2002 11:47 am

<i>Did you get your results of your college entrance exam yet?</i><BR><BR>I did get into the interview but no word yet about if I got in, they're required by law to notify applicants by the 19th of july though, so I'll know before too long.<BR><BR><i>O.K. and I do consider it possible to have knowledge of things...got it! But I’m still wondering if you can have ideas or beliefs in something if you haven't perceived it, sensed it, or experienced it before? (I’m thinking your answer will be yes).</i><BR><BR>Yes, why couldn't I?<BR><BR><i>Did you see the movie “A Beautiful Mind”? I saw it a few days ago...</i><BR><BR>Nope, haven't seen it.<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>Bite the sacred apple<BR>suck the poison<BR>enjoy the taste
User avatar
Epor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:44 am
Top

Previous

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests